Bills

Adelaide University Bill

Second Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Defence and Space Industries, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water) (11:02): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today, I rise to introduce the Adelaide University Bill 2023. Universities play an extremely important role in our community. They educate, research, bring diversity to the state, and help meet the state's skills and workforce needs. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that we have a robust higher education system in our state that will meet our economic, social and workforce needs well into the future.

There has been a lot of debate in recent months about the best way to ensure the relevance, longevity and social impact of higher education in South Australia, and the shape the sector should take going forward. This debate is not new. In fact, the debate about the number and composition of the universities in this state has been going on for decades. There have been many discussions about how, why, when and who, and, indeed, in 2018 the state edged closer to sectoral reform with the universities of Adelaide and South Australia very seriously considering merging their two institutions.

However, there was a key piece missing in 2018, and that was the interest and investment from the government of the day. This government has taken a different approach. We believe that in order to secure a stronger future for our state we need at least one institution of a large scale: a large, research-intensive university that is committed to both excellence and equity, and an institution that on day one will be the biggest educator of domestic students of any university in Australia.

That is why we have chosen to be active rather than passive in these conversations. We have worked with the universities of South Australia and Adelaide to imagine what a new university in this state might achieve, and we have been willing to provide the appropriate resourcing to ensure we are best placed to achieve the vision of the new Adelaide University to deliver nation-leading curriculum and student experience, greater access to education, and world-class research excellence.

After months of planning, consultation and careful consideration, I am pleased to introduce the Adelaide University Bill to the House of Assembly today. Now is the right time for a new university in our state that is committed not just to excellence in teaching, research and innovation, but to extending access to all South Australians, particularly those who have been under-represented in education.

It is the right time for a new university that is committed to serving the public interest by contributing to the state's economic priorities, championing free inquiry and translating its research to the benefit of us all. It is the right time for a new university that is committed to the best outcomes for its students and that will create a distinctive contemporary industry-informed curriculum.

During a period of major national sectoral reform through the Australian Universities Accord, it is the right time for a new university whose vision wholly aligns with the objectives of that reform to improve the quality, accessibility and sustainability of the higher education sector in this nation. So it is today I commend to you the Adelaide University Bill.

While it is with much excitement that I look forward to the future and anticipate the great potential of this new university, it would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to recognise the rich history and sizeable contribution of the two institutions that will be coming together to create the new one.

Let me start with the oldest of the two, the University of Adelaide, which next year will be celebrating its 150^th anniversary. The University of Adelaide was founded in 1874 as the state's first public university following the £20,000 donation by grazier and copper miner Walter Watson Hughes along with support and donations from Thomas Elder.

As we well know, it takes time to establish a new institution, so it was not until 1876 that teaching commenced, with the first offering a Bachelor of Arts degree. The South Australian parliament granted five acres of land to the University of Adelaide, and in 1879 the foundation stone for the first university building on North Terrace campus was laid.

The University of Adelaide is the third oldest university in Australia and one of only four that started before Federation. It was founded with two contemporary goals: to prepare new generations of leaders who were distinguished and shaped by education, not birth or wealth alone, and to change societal norms that hindered progress or reinforced inequality. These noble aims started 150 years ago and could well have been articulated today given their alignment with the vision for the new university.

Throughout its almost 150 years of existence, the University of Adelaide has celebrated many achievements. There are too many to list here, but allow me to focus on some highlights. Soon after opening it was the first Australian university to offer science degrees. Continuing with the firsts, it was also the first Australian university to admit women to all degree courses on an equal basis to men, with Edith Emily Dornwell the first woman to graduate in 1885.

The Waite Agricultural Research Institute was established in 1924 and is home to one of the largest concentrations of agriculture and wine research and teaching expertise in the Southern Hemisphere. The year 1991 saw the establishment of Roseworthy campus through a merger between the University and Roseworthy Agricultural College.

The University of Adelaide counts five Noble laureates amongst its alumni, accounting for almost a third of Australia's 16 total recipients. This includes Howard Florey, who developed penicillin; and the Braggs, the father and son team whose research underpins our modern pharmaceutical industry.

Other notable alumni include Dame Roma Mitchell AC, DBE, CVO, QC, who became Australia's first female Queen’s Counsel, Supreme Court judge, university chancellor and state Governor; the first female Prime Minister in Australia, Julia Gillard AC; and astronaut Andy Thomas AO, the first Australian to walk in space.

Now to the University of South Australia, which celebrated its 30^th anniversary in 2021. Although UniSA, as it is commonly known, is a young institution, its foundations date back to the latter half of the 19^th century. The forerunners of today's institution were the South Australian School of Art, which was founded in 1856; the first of several teacher training colleges, formed in 1876; and the School of Mines and Industries, which was established in 1889. Over time, these foundational institutions involved into the South Australian Institute of Technology, or SAIT, and the South Australian College of Advanced Education, the two of which came together in 1991 to create the University of South Australia.

The key values of these founding institutions were pivotal in shaping UniSA, with SAIT's strong commitment to industry engagement and the SACAE's unwavering dedication to equity and inclusion featuring prominently in the aims of the university upon establishment and continuing to be priorities today.

Indeed, when the University of South Australia Act was introduced to parliament in 1990, the Hon. Mike Rann stated that the university would lay the base for a standard of excellence and accessibility to that excellence. He went on to say that sustained economic success and social development depends upon the continuing education of our people and the trained abilities of our workforce—once again, sentiments that echo today in the vision for Adelaide University.

UniSA has stayed true to its values and celebrated a number of significant achievements. In 1997 it was the first Australian university to develop a statement of commitment to Australian reconciliation. It provides improved access to tertiary education through the Distance Education Centre launched in 1993; the opening of UniSA College in 2010, providing alternate pathways to university; and launching UniSA Online in 2017, offering 100 per cent online degrees. The university was named Employer of Choice for Women in 2003 and has earnt the citation every year since.

It extended its regional geographic footprint beyond Whyalla by opening the Mount Gambier campus in 2005 as part of its regional engagement strategy. Further, UniSA established the Centre for Cancer Biology in 2013 through an alliance with SA Pathology, boasting the largest concentration of cancer research in South Australia. The university has maintained a strong commitment to the community through the opening of public-facing facilities, including MOD., which is Australia's leading future-focused museum, as well as the Samstag Museum of Art, one of Australia's foremost university art museums. The coming together of two institutions with such strong foundations provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a new university for the future that will have the scale and resources to sustainably be one of Australia's best and top-ranked universities.

As you will be aware, the state and federal governments signed a Statement of Cooperation with the University of Adelaide and the University of South Australia in December last year to explore the feasibility of creating a new university for our state. This resulted in the two universities undertaking a substantial amount of work over a six-month period, including a formal engagement process in the development of a feasibility assessment, business case and financial plan.

In late June this significant body of work was presented to the councils of both universities, who were satisfied that the creation of a new university, supported by state government investment, was in the best interests of their university and of the state. In making this decision, the councils were fully aware that it is ultimately up to the Parliament of South Australia to decide whether it will approve the creation of a new public university in South Australia through the passing of legislation. Accordingly, the Adelaide University Bill 2023, presented to you today, establishes a new comprehensive public university in South Australia.

As agreed in the Statement of Cooperation, the bill is largely modelled on the University of South Australia Act 1990 as the more contemporary of the two universities' acts. However, the Adelaide University Bill being presented to you today contains important updates reflecting more contemporary aims and, importantly, incorporating the extensive feedback we have received throughout this process.

The state government, through the Department for Industry, Innovation and Science, undertook extensive consultation on the draft bill with the universities, key stakeholders and the public. The consolidated feedback, along with the recommendations of the report of this parliament's Joint Committee on the Establishment of Adelaide University, tabled in this place on 17 October 2023, as well as the amendments received from members of the Legislative Council, have been considered by the government and have informed the bill being introduced today.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the members of the joint committee and thank them for their extensive work, comprehensive report and considered findings, many of which you will find reflected in the bill before you today. Likewise, I would like to thank the members of the Legislative Council for their contributions to the discussions that have helped shape this legislation.

One of the major updates from the University of South Australia Act is a much more comprehensive and contemporary list of functions of the new university, reflecting a greater focus on the contribution and service to regional, state, national and international communities, including supporting and contributing to the realisation of South Australia's economic development priorities. There is also recognition that the university in the performance of its functions will have a focus on the success of its students, staff and alumni, address the skills and needs of the modern workforce, conduct outstanding research of scale and focus, and engage with the communities it serves. It will focus on excellence, equitable opportunity and innovation in university education, and be informed by the highest standards in teaching and research and by the needs of its students.

Importantly, Adelaide University will also engage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in its teaching, research and advancement of knowledge activities so as to contribute to recognising and valuing the ancient and rich cultural heritage and knowledge systems of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

In recognition of the important contribution student associations make to the life of the university, and reflecting the recommendations of the joint committee, the bill includes the provision for a student association to be formed for the purpose of promoting the interests of students. The Legislative Council also agreed to include a drafting note acknowledging the intention that Adelaide University Union will merge with the University of South Australia Student Association to form a new student association for Adelaide University.

The bill also includes the establishment of two funds totalling $320 million to be maintained in perpetuity and invested with the Superannuation Funds Management Corporation of South Australia in accordance with the fund guidelines. In response to the recommendations from the joint committee, the bill now includes a provision for the Treasurer to report annually on the performance of the funds.

The first of these two funds, the Adelaide University Research Fund, will support research that aligns with Adelaide University's objectives and strategic plans and with the state's research and economic development priorities. The second fund, the Adelaide University Student Support Fund, will facilitate access to the university and address equity considerations for people within the community who have experienced disadvantages in education or in access to education or who are under-represented in education.

An important addition agreed by the Legislative Council was the requirement that at least $20 million of the Student Support Fund would be dedicated towards supporting payments from the fund, addressing access to the university and equity considerations for people residing in regional and outer metropolitan areas.

Important governance issues are addressed in the bill, including the constitution of the council and the duties of council members, including the need for the council to have a conflict of interest policy and a code of conduct, the latter of which was added following agreement by the Legislative Council. Audit requirements are also outlined, with the Legislative Council agreeing to stipulate that the audit must be undertaken by the Auditor-General.

Transitional provisions are included in the bill, including the establishment of a transition council, which has a clear remit to engage with staff and students of both existing universities in exercising its responsibilities and functions. These responsibilities include overseeing the transition of tertiary education and research currently being provided and conducted by the existing universities, to Adelaide University; and preparing Adelaide University so that it can commence providing courses and other tertiary education programs.

The bill combines all the strengths of the University of South Australia and the University of Adelaide to reflect a contemporary, future-focused institution. The new Adelaide University will be dedicated to addressing educational inequality; it will conduct future-making research of scale and focus; and it will partner with communities and industry to become a globally recognised powerhouse for innovation and economic development.

It has taken a lot of dedicated work to get to this point, but the work to establish and create Adelaide University lies before us. There is some urgency around this, to ensure certainty for staff, current and future students, and to enable the new university to commence the process to obtain the necessary accreditation and regulatory approvals to welcome the first cohort of students in 2026.

The idea to establish a new university has been talked about for many years. The time for talk is over. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for our state, and now is the right time for us to seize this opportunity and create a new university. I commend the bill to members and seek leave to have the explanation of clauses inserted into Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

These clauses are formal.

3—Object

This clause sets out the objects of the Act.

4—Interpretation

This clause defines terms to be used in the measure.

Part 2—The University

Division 1—Establishment, functions and powers

5—Establishment

This clause establishes the Adelaide University.

6—Body corporate features

This clause sets out the corporate features of the University.

7—Functions

This clause sets out the functions of the University.

8—General powers

This clause sets out the general powers of the University, such as the power to enter into contracts and agreements.

9—Awards

This clause provides power for the University to confer awards on persons.

10—Internal organisation of University

This clause provides that the University will establish a structure for its different areas of learning, research and support operations (which may be varied from time to time by the University).

11—Student associations

This clause provides for the formation of a student association.

Division 2—Official titles and proprietary interests

12—Declaration of logo and official titles

This clause provides for the declaration, by notice in the Gazette of a logo or official title of the University.

13—Protection of proprietary interests

This clause sets out the proprietary rights of the University in respect of its official logos and insignia, including:

an offence with a maximum penalty of $50,000 applying for using an official logo or insignia of the University without the University's consent;

the manner in which consent to use official logo or insignia of the University may be sought and granted;

a power for the Supreme Court, on the application of the University, to grant an injunction to restrain a person from using official insignia in contravention of this provision.

Part 3—Administration of University

Division 1—The Council

14—Establishment and responsibilities

This clause establishes the Council of the University and sets out the Council's primary responsibilities.

15—Powers

This clause sets out the powers of the Council.

16—Constitution of Council

This clause provides for the membership of the Council.

17—Term of office

This clause sets out the terms of office for various members of the Council.

18—Casual vacancies

This clause provides for the circumstances in which the Council may remove an appointed member and the circumstances in which a position on Council becomes vacant. The clause further sets out the process by which a casual vacancy caused by such a removal or vacancy is to be dealt with.

19—Chancellor, Deputy Chancellor and Pro-Chancellors

This clause provides for the offices of Chancellor, Deputy Chancellor and Pro-Chancellor.

20—Validity of acts and decisions of Council

This clause provides that an act or decision of the Council is not invalid by reason only of a vacancy in its membership or on the ground of a defect in the appointment or election of a member.

21—Remuneration

This clause provides that the Council may determine remuneration for members of the Council.

Division 2—Duties of Council members

22—Duty to exercise care and diligence etc

This clause provides that Council members must at all times, in the performance of the member's functions:

exercise a reasonable degree of care and diligence; and

act in a way that the member thinks will best promote the interests of the University.

23—Duty to act in good faith etc

This clause sets out Council member's duties in respect of acting in good faith and not improperly using their position as Council members.

24—Conflict of interest policy

This clause provides that the Council must have a conflict of interest policy.

25—Code of conduct

This clause provides that the Council must have a code of conduct for its members.

26—Removal of Council member

This clause provides that non compliance with a clause in the proposed Division will be taken to be serious misconduct and grounds for removal of a member from office.

27—Civil liability for contravention

This clause allows for the University to recover from a person who profits from a breach of a duty, a conflict of interest policy or a code of conduct under the proposed Division—

if the person or any other person made a profit as a result of the breach—an amount equal to the profit; and

if the University suffered loss or damage as a result of the breach—compensation for the loss or damage.

Division 3—Procedures

28—Proceedings at meetings

This clause sets out the manner in which proceedings at Council meetings are to be conducted.

Division 4—Vice Chancellor

29—Vice Chancellor

This clause provides for the office of Vice Chancellor of the University.

Division 5—Academic Board

30—Academic Board

This clause establishes the Academic Board of the University and provides for the appointment of its members.

Division 6—Related matters

31—Terms of reference

This clause provides for the matters that may comprise the terms of reference for a committee or other body established by the Council, and that the terms of reference may be varied, revoked or substituted by the Council from time to time.

32—Delegation

This clause provides for the manner in which the Council may delegate its functions and powers.

33—Common seal

This clause provides for the application of the common seal of the University.

Part 4—Statutes and by-laws

Division 1—Statutes

34—Statutes

This clause provides for the manner in which the University may make statutes in connection with the governance, operation or administration of the University.

Division 2—By-laws

35—Interpretation

This clause defines terms used in the proposed Division.

36—By-laws

This clause provides for the matters in relation to which the University may make by-laws.

37—Making of by-laws

This clause sets out the manner in which by-laws may be made.

38—Offences

This clause sets out the process by which offences against by-laws may be dealt with.

Part 5—Funds

39—Interpretation

This clause defines terms to be used in the proposed Part.

40—Fund guidelines

This clause requires the Treasurer to approve guidelines for the purposes of the Funds to be established under the proposed Part and sets out the requirements for the making and content of the guidelines.

41—Adelaide University Research Fund

This clause establishes the Adelaide University Research Fund, and sets out the manner in which the Fund is to be applied and managed.

42—Adelaide University Student Support Fund

This clause establishes the Adelaide University Student Support Fund, and sets out the manner in which the Fund is to be applied and managed.

43—Funds Advisory Committee

This clause establishes the Funds Advisory Committee for the purposes of approving the purposes to which a Fund may be applied.

44—Annual report

This clause provides for the Treasurer to provide an annual report on the performance of the Funds to be established under the proposed Part and for that report to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament.

Part 6—Trusts and other funds

45—Creation and administration of trust funds and other funds

This clause allows for the University to create and administer trust and other funds.

46—Establishment of common funds

This clause provides for the manner in which the University may establish investment common funds for the collective investment of any trust funds and other funds held by, or in the custody of, the University.

47—Distribution of income of common funds

This clause sets out the manner in which the University must distribute income from an investment common fund.

48—Commissions

This clause sets out the provisions in relation to the payment of commission for the administration of a common fund.

Part 7—Miscellaneous

49—Annual report

This clause provides for the Council to provide an annual report to the Minister on the operation of the University.

50—Audit

This clause mandates the annual auditing of the accounts and financial statements of the University by the Auditor-General.

51—Indemnities

This clause mandates the indemnification of members of the Council and any member of a board or committee constituted or appointed by the Council against actions or omissions done in good faith in the exercise of its powers under the proposed measure.

52—Exemption from land tax

This clause exempts the University from liability to pay land tax.

53—Recovery of monetary penalties

This clause allows the University to recover a monetary penalty imposed under the measure.

54—Regulations

This clause provides power for the Governor to make regulations in respect of the measure.

55—Review of Act

This clause provides for a review of the operation of the Act to be undertaken within 12 months of the commencement of the clause.

Schedule 1—Repeals, amendments, transitional and other provisions

Part 1—Repeal of Acts

1—Repeal of Acts

This clause provides for the repeal of the University of Adelaide Act 1971 and the University of South Australia Act 1990.

Part 2—Amendment of Legal Practitioners Act 1981

2—Amendment of section 14B—Establishment of LPEAC

This clause makes several amendments to update references to Adelaide University.

Part 3—Amendment of National Wine Centre (Restructuring and Leasing Arrangements) Act 2002

3—Amendment of dedication of Centre land

This amendment updates a reference to Adelaide University.

Part 4—Amendment of Payroll Tax Act 2009

4—Amendment of Schedule 2

This amendment updates a reference to Adelaide University.

Part 5—Amendment of Road Traffic Act 1961

5—Amendment of section 175—Evidence

This amendment updates a reference to Adelaide University.

Part 6—Amendment of SACE Board of South Australia Act 1983

6—Amendment of Schedule 1

This amendment updates references to Adelaide University.

Part 7—Transitional and other provisions

Division 1—Preliminary

7—Interpretation

This clause defines terms to be used in this Part.

Division 2—Transition Council

8—Establishment, responsibilities and powers

This clause provides for the establishment, responsibilities and powers of the Transition Council.

9—Constitution of Transition Council

This clause provides for the membership of the Transition Council.

10—Proceedings at meetings

This clause sets out the procedures for proceedings at a meeting of the Transition Council.

11—Validity of acts and decisions of Transition Council

This clause provides for the validity of certain acts or decisions of the Transition Council.

Division 3—Chancellor and Deputy Chancellors

12—Chancellor and Deputy Chancellors

This clause provides for the appointment of the Chancellor and Deputy Chancellors of the Transition Council.

Division 4—Vice Chancellor

13—Vice Chancellor

This clause provides for the appointment of the first Vice Chancellors of the University.

Division 5—Transitional Academic Board

14—Transitional Academic Board

This clause provides for the appointment of the first Academic Board of the University.

Division 6—Staff

15—Transfer by proclamation

This clause provides for the manner in which the Governor may, by proclamation transfer the employment of employees of The University of Adelaide or the University of South Australia to Adelaide University.

16—Transfer on repeal of Act

This clause effects the transfer of the employment of an employee of The University of Adelaide or the University of South Australia to Adelaide University on a prescribed day.

17—Effect of provisions

This clause is technical.

18—Preservation of rights and continuity of employment

The proposed clause makes provision for the preservation of existing contracts of employment, remuneration or other conditions of employment that may apply to in relation to a transfer of employment effected under the proposed Division.

19—Superannuation

This clause makes provision for the transfer and entering into arrangements by Adelaide University in relation to the superannuation of persons who have had their employment transferred under the proposed Division.

Division 7—Assets, contracts and liabilities

20—Transfer by proclamation

This clause provides for the manner in which the Governor may, by proclamation, transfer any assets, contracts or liabilities of The University of Adelaide or the University of South Australia to Adelaide University.

21—Transfer on repeal of Act

This clause effects the transfer of assets, contracts or liabilities of The University of Adelaide or the University of South Australia to Adelaide University on a prescribed day.

22—Effect of provisions

This provision is technical.

23—Saving provision

This clause provides a saving provision in relation to a transfer effected under the proposed Division.

Division 8—Students

24—Transfer by proclamation

This clause provides for the manner in which the Governor may, by proclamation, transfer the enrolment of persons as students of The University of Adelaide or students of the University of South Australia to be students of Adelaide University.

25—Transfer on repeal of Act

This clause effects the transfer of students of The University of Adelaide or the University of South Australia to be students of Adelaide University on a prescribed day.

26—Effect of provisions

This provision is technical.

27—Related provision

Subclause (1) deals with the credit for prior learning and qualification for awards of students transferred under the proposed Division. Subclause (2) provides that the universities must establish a binding scheme relating to the transfer of students under the proposed Division.

Division 9—Official insignia

28—Official insignia

This clause provides for the continuation of the official insignia of The University of Adelaide and the University of South Australia as official insignia of Adelaide University.

Division 10—Trusts and other instruments

29—Testamentary trusts, gifts or deeds

This clause sets out the manner in which a testamentary disposition, gift or trust that refers to The University of Adelaide or the University of South Australia may be applied in relation to Adelaide University.

30—Other instruments

This clause provides that a reference to The University of Adelaide or the University of South Australia in contracts or instruments will be taken to be a reference to Adelaide University.

Division 11—The Adelaide University Union

31—The Adelaide University Union

This clause provides for the transfer, by proclamation made at the request of The Adelaide University Union, of the assets, contracts or liabilities of the Union to another body.

Division 12—Other provisions

32—Graduates and award holders

This clause allows for a person who has been awarded a degree, diploma, certificate or other award in the name of The University of Adelaide or the University of South Australia to be taken to be a graduate of Adelaide University.

33—Legal proceedings

This clause allows for legal proceedings against The University of Adelaide or the University of South Australia to be continued against Adelaide University.

34—Successor in law

This clause provides that Adelaide University becomes the successor in law of The University of Adelaide and the University of South Australia.

35—Accounting and reporting requirements

This clause provides for the continuing obligation of Adelaide University to cause financial statements to be audited and provide reports or other information.

36—Registration authorities

This clause sets out the manner in which the Registrar-General may register or record a transfer or vesting as a result of a provision of the proposed Part.

37—Exemption from stamp duty

This clause exempts the transfer or vesting of property under the proposed Part from the liability to pay stamp duty.

38—Delegation

This clause allows the power of delegation of the Council in this measure to be exercised by the Transition Council.

39—Regulations

This clause provides power for regulations of a saving or transitional nature to be made for the purpose of the measure.

Part 8—Support to establish Adelaide University

40—Support to establish Adelaide University

This clause provides for the manner in which the University of Adelaide and the University of South Australia may provide resources to facilitate the establishment of Adelaide University.

S.E. ANDREWS (Gibson) (11:18): I rise to speak in support of the Adelaide University Bill. Higher education is critical to our state for social and economic purposes, and reform must be contemplated from time to time to ensure we are meeting the needs of students, researchers, staff, employers and our state more broadly. Education is the key to our future for so many young people in our state and internationally. For so many of these young people, university is the pathway that suits them best. In this bill, we seek equality and sustainability in higher education.

Adelaide University sees the merger of two currently very different universities in the University of Adelaide and the University of South Australia. The University of Adelaide is Australia's third oldest in the country, being formed prior to Federation, whilst the University of South Australia has a very different background, merging the teachers' colleges with the Institute of Technology. In fact, my father was a maths lecturer at Sturt college and I have fond memories of spending my time there as a young person. These two very different universities have independently determined that it is in their best interests and in the best interests of the state for this merger to go ahead and, importantly, for student outcomes as well.

There are a number of things that stand out to me in this bill, particularly the creation of the $200 million research fund. Whether we like it or not, the funding model in Australia rewards scale for our universities, and our universities in South Australia are currently at their limit in what they can achieve with the research available to them. Being able to broaden our research capability also will enable us to become more internationally competitive. Importantly, we should keep focused on the outcomes that good research can create for our local community, in the country and internationally. Of note is the increased capacity that we will see in the Centre for Cancer Biology.

The commitment to maintain the presence of our universities in our regions is also important. This is important for students and local industry. The reality of moving into the city is, for a young person, increasingly difficult with access to the rental market and the costs incurred by leaving home, so it is increasingly important that we can keep students accessing education where they are.

It is also important to note that we are maintaining and supporting a new merged student association to promote the interests of students. My experience at Flinders University was that student unions provide a very broad base of support for students, and I commend that continuing. It is also important now that we will have the opportunity to support students from lower socio-economic backgrounds to access university, because if you have the ability, you should have the opportunity.

It is timely, too, with the accord process currently underway in Australia, and we are ready to take on the recommendations in the flexible environment that we see ourselves in to proceed with this merged university. This big shift in universities in South Australia also gives us an opportunity to use this time of change to create new course offerings—courses that we will increasingly need in South Australia as our employment opportunities change and advanced manufacturing comes to our state, and we increasingly need highly trained workers. We will also, with our larger university, be better placed to support the smaller, more niche courses, which also provides more opportunities for students and employers in our state.

International students will also be able to come to Australia, seeing a more diverse student body and more employment opportunities for students in our state. I think it is also important to note that when international university students attend, their families come to visit them, and when their families come to visit they spend quite a long time in Adelaide and in South Australia and are return visitors. This is going to be another benefit to our state. This university will be a contemporary university, and this is the right time. I commend this bill to the house.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:24): I am pleased to be able to speak on behalf of the opposition on the Adelaide University Bill. I indicate that the Liberal Party will support the bill, but that support is contingent on circumstance in many ways. I will go through that. We do have some significant reservations about the approach that has been taken. We are not convinced that all the t's have been crossed and all the i's have been dotted in terms of the broader policy approach, the impact on the sector, and whether the approach the government has taken nails it for the people of South Australia.

On balance, the support the opposition is providing to the bill and the process is also partly in the context that this is a process that is going ahead. It has been clearly going ahead ever since the Hon. Sarah Game from One Nation and the Hon. Connie Bonaros of SA-Best, both of the Legislative Council, stood with the government and did a press conference confirming their support for the bill. At that moment, the bill was going to pass.

The new university is going to be created. Its structures will be in place in order for it to seek TEQSA registration early next year. It will be seeking to advertise to attract international students to come to South Australia for courses beginning on 1 January 2026, when the new institution is to formally commence its existence.

In that context—this employer of more than 8,000 staff, as it will be; the educator of potentially as many as 70,000 students in the long term, as we hope it will be; this significant institution for South Australia's trade and investment future, potentially attracting hopefully more than 5,000 extra international students over the thousands that the two institutions currently do; this institution having such a significant role in South Australia's economy and future; and this research base tackling the challenges that confront us in South Australia, particularly, but around the world, in our lives, in our scientific development, in our health sciences and in our defence needs—this institution is going to happen as a result of that support in the Legislative Council.

It is an institution that must succeed. In that context, the opposition will do what we can to support its success. We will highlight areas where we believe the government has not necessarily crossed those t's and dotted those i's, and put in place measures to ensure its success beyond all reasonable doubt. We will advocate for improvements to the process that the government has spoken about:

the impact on Flinders University, for example, of the creation of a perpetual fund for Adelaide University that does not also support our state's second university;

the impact upon residents and the community around Magill, for example, as a consequence of whatever the government chooses to do with the land sale that is wrapped up in this process; and

the direct supports that the government is providing to Adelaide University and the obligations it is requiring of Adelaide University in order to manage the transition process.

Through the course of this debate and, indeed, over the next 2½ years, the opposition will put forward our concerns, our suggestions. We will highlight opportunities where we believe the matter can be improved. We will urge the government to take those on board and, should they not, there will be opportunities after March 2026 for the opposition to put in place some of those improvements when we form government, should the people of South Australia give us that opportunity and that honour.

When this parliament was noting the report of the Joint Committee on the Establishment of Adelaide University last sitting week, I articulated at some length the range of work that has gone into this bill over not just months but years. Members who are interested, as the Deputy Premier was intently throughout that lengthy speech, will be able to reflect on some of the points I made then. Some of them bear repeating in the context of this bill, but I do not propose to go into as much detail in this contribution as I did then.

For the record, I would certainly consider anybody who is looking into the Liberal Party's point of view on these matters to look at my reflections during the last sitting week side-by-side with this speech. If anyone is trawling through Hansard for some postdoctoral thesis in years ahead, wondering how the university was established and what the opposition's point of view was at the time, this speech ain't going to be enough. There is a wealth of primary source material available to such a scholar, and I encourage them towards it. Spread over multiple days and five separate sessions, it bears investigation.

In the second reading speech, the Deputy Premier reflected, as did the Attorney-General when he introduced it into the Legislative Council a couple of weeks ago, on a difference between the situation now with the universities seeking an opportunity to merge compared to 2018. It was a mistake when the Attorney-General said it and it was a mistake when the Deputy Premier said it. They suggest that the only difference between the approach from 2018 and the approach from 2022 is the level of interest and support from government in doing so.

I note first that the Attorney-General and the Deputy Premier only chose 2018 as their comparator, as if the approaches that had been made towards a merger some five or six years earlier than that and five or six years earlier than that and so on and so on going back to the late nineties, almost every time of which the Labor Party was in power, had not gone ahead. The criticisms the government made of the former Liberal government, if they were valid, could be equally applied to any former Labor government as well.

But, more than that, there is inaccuracy in the question of whether the former government was interested and whether that approach from the former government was what caused the university merger pathway to fail in 2018. There is just no evidence of that. There was testimony from one witness during the joint parliamentary committee, which I think would be charitably described as hearsay evidence from somebody who was peripheral to the issue at the time who purported to report on conversations with somebody involved in the Liberal government at the time.

I was the Minister for Education and I met with David Lloyd and Peter Rathjen on a number of occasions when they were presenting their vision for what could happen and at every moment, whether it was the Premier, to my understanding, or certainly in my own discussions with them, the former government was respectful, courteous, interested and awaiting further information as to what they thought would be necessary from government if such a proposal was to proceed.

The vice-chancellors, the chancellors and the university councils did not reach the point where they were able to put forward such a proposition because, in the meantime, the university councils chose not to proceed. They did not wish to and their circumstances, it should be said, were different because one of the key reasons why the universities sought government investment to enable this to take place is because of the financial situation cumulatively of the two universities, which is entirely different now to what it was in 2018.

Whether the Deputy Premier and the Attorney-General—I suspect the Deputy Premier remembers and I suspect the Attorney-General remembers—have noted that there was a pandemic between 2020 and 2022 and have drawn the link between that pandemic and the financial security and financial base of our universities is not apparent from their second reading contributions. It is more than public knowledge. The extraordinary challenge that our universities faced during the pandemic has been broadcast in so many different ways. Staff in their hundreds were laid off from the University of Adelaide. The future prospectus on international students was slashed by the pandemic.

The extraordinary thing about the number of international students in the pandemic was that we actually managed to keep so many. There were a large number of students who continued being enrolled and studied remotely from China and other parts of the world while not actually being able to attend in Australia. They maintained their enrolment in large numbers and were able to complete degrees here and some are still here having commenced their studies while studying remotely.

But the numbers that we have now and the numbers that we had over the last couple of years compared to prior to the pandemic have been slashed and it is still a sector that is recovering. The nature of those studies has also been recovering, of course, during the intervening period. People have formed different study habits. We are transitioning more towards a heavier focus on post-graduate work being done by international students as a proportion of the mix compared to undergraduates who do their whole degrees here.

It was a two-year pause where nobody new was coming into Australia, and that had an impact in the hundreds of millions of dollars on our universities' bottom lines. There was a different federal funding mix in 2018 to that which exists now. The importance of international students was there in 2018, it is more important now, and there are questions on whether that will change as a result of the Australian Universities Accord process, which is as yet incomplete. I will get to the accord.

In relation to the government investment, in 2018, the ask of universities, had we reached that point, I suspect would have been much more modest, and there was certainly no discouragement from the government in terms of pursuing that, it is just that the universities decided they did not want to. There are a range of reasons that have been posited as to why that might be the case. The university councils have kept their own counsel—if you will forgive the duplication.

But, as education minister, in all of the discussions that I have had with chancellors, vice-chancellors, deputy vice-chancellors or others between 2018 and 2022, I did not hear any of them blaming us. For the new government to say that that was the difference is a nonsense. We have always said, from the Liberal Party's point of view, that we would be willing to facilitate a merger and support the merger based on two factors: firstly, the universities going into this willingly, voluntarily, not being forced into it because governments, ministers or premiers decided that it was the thing to do because it was their vibe, that was how they felt and they were going to make it happen, look tough, look strong—'Universities, just get in line.' That would not have been adequate.

We, of course, have had a significant process over the last year and a half now where the universities have determined at their leadership level, at least, through their councils, through their vice-chancellors, through their chancellors, that this is something they wish to pursue, that they consider to be in the institutions' interests and in the state's interests, and we take them at their word. They have made that very clear, and they have explained the process they have gone through to come to that landing. That satisfies the first of the Liberal Party's two questions as to whether we would support the legislation.

The second aspect is whether it is in the state's interests. That is a big question. It is a question I am sure the Deputy Premier turned her mind to at great length in opposition and upon forming government. I am not going to dwell too long on the question of the election commitment. The opposition's election commitment was for a commission to effectively seek an answer to this question of what is in the state's best interests. The fact that the government chose not to go down that path but instead to operate directly with the universities does leave that question requiring thoughtful consideration to come up with an answer: what is in the state's best interests?

Throughout this process, there have been a lot of questions that inform that. Is it in the institutions' interests? The councils say yes. Many of the staff say no. Students have gone both ways, but probably more saying yes than no. The union says no. The joint committee looked into this. The majority view was a decision where they said—and I use 'they' because I have clearly outed myself by having a minority report as a member of the minority:

On the balance of the evidence received, the Committee considers that the economic and social interests of the State of South Australia would likely be advanced by the amalgamation of The University of Adelaide and the University of South Australia into the new Adelaide University.

The minority, of which I was a member, at least, put it somewhat differently. We formed a view that:

1. On the balance of the evidence considered by the Committee, the economic and social interests of the State of South Australia might be advanced by the proposed amalgamation, but Members should note that these opportunities carry with them a number of considerable risks that need to be mitigated…

2. We believe that while informed Members acting in good faith could reasonably conclude that the risks inherent in the proposal are worth taking, or not, we would suggest that the measures presented [elsewhere] in the report are essential if the proposal were to [succeed]—

and we suggested further measures. This question then is also not just about the economic and social impacts on the state but what else universities do. Universities, as institutions, are behemoths. They are not only substantial employers, they do not only have a substantial impact on our economy immediately, they also establish a framework for our culture as a state and the education of our professional class that then has an impact for decades hence.

If you are working in a range of professions around South Australia, chances are you are taking an approach to your teaching or your doctoring or your lawyering or your engineering or the science that you are pursuing that is founded significantly on the way you interacted with the university when you were at it. I studied from the mid-1990s to the early 2000s and I cannot help but be influenced by the skills, the knowledge and the dispositions that I learnt during that time at university, from the way that my professors, teachers and tutors supported my education.

For decades, we had education schools not just in South Australia but around Australia that were not teaching teachers how to do early reading instruction using phonics, which it turns out is really important, and consequently that had an impact on the way that many teachers for a long time, until the last decade or so, certainly the last six or seven years, had been implementing early literacy instruction in classrooms.

My point is that the economic and social impacts identified by the committee report, and which I think the Deputy Premier focused on in her speech, are not the only impacts of universities. Our universities are tremendously important. Relevant to the bill, because the bill unlocks some significant investments by the state government into the university sector, is the investment in other parts of the education and training system as well.

I noted that last week we had the AGM and the convention of the Apprentice Employment Network here in South Australia. The Minister for Education was talking about the tremendously important role that skills and training and the work of RTOs and GTOs play in regard to our future workforce needs. The way in which we fund and support training and the university sector in this country are very different from each other. There is an intentionality to that, but there is also a series of historical accidents that have led us to this point.

Some might say that there is a class or group that goes to university that has this tremendously worthwhile HECS process that means you can study anything and pay it back to the taxpayer when you are earning a certain amount and that is an extraordinarily generous gift to what was traditionally the middle class or the wealthier classes in Australia. Over a series of decades, we wanted to support upward mobility, we wanted to enable every young person to find the thing that would enable them to thrive in life and enjoy their life and so we pitched very hard, we worked very hard to ensure that every young person knew that they, too, could succeed and they, too, could have a university education.

One of the points that the Minister for Education made in his speech last week, which I agree with—it is right—is that in our noble cause to ensure that there was social mobility and that no child would see themselves cut off from being able to be a doctor, a lawyer, an engineer or anything that required a university degree, we devalued the skills and training sector at the same time. We almost made it as if the only kids who should be doing an apprenticeship or a traineeship or VET education should be those for whom an ATAR was out of reach. The minister framed it a bit differently, but I hope he will not mind me paraphrasing.

That has had negative consequences on our community too, because it turns out that for the young person their experience of school education might be similar to other kids at school. There is a certain level of uniformity at least in some of the subjects that are studied, but then the pathways out of school, whether it is a traineeship, an apprenticeship, VET and then work, going directly to work or going to university and then onwards, are a whole wide range of different experiences, but the university sector is privileged in many ways due to government investment. We do that because, of course, there are significant costs to some of those things that we have at university.

But I do think that, as a society, we need to work really hard with our schools and with our families, with public education campaigns to families, to ensure that when a young person is in years 7, 8, or 9—the junior secondary years at school—they are presented with every opportunity to find a pathway that is going to suit their aspirations, their aptitudes, their dispositions, and the job market that is going to be ahead of them.

It may well be that a class at any school might have half of the kids who would be fantastic in a university pathway, and 40 per cent who will be fantastic in a VET pathway, and 10 per cent who have things that they are interested in and who can go straight to work after school. That is great, but we have to work harder to get that right. We cannot just assume that university or trades are better because they are both tremendously important, and many young people doing one or the other will end up in the other, potentially using both to further their careers.

I say that in the context of the investment that is coming with this and the impact that funding a university, or forcing two big institutions like this to merge, will have on our society. It is a substantial one. This university, as a merged institution, will be responsible for the education not just of researchers and conducting research that will be important to South Australia's economy, and not just educating the international students whose economic impact, and the social impact of those international students, was probably a large portion of the work of the parliamentary Joint Committee on the Establishment of Adelaide University.

It is also going to be the educator of the majority of our professionals in South Australia. So, from the first graduating class in 2026 of the new university, so merged, or more likely the first graduating classes of 2028-29, when students will have only been doing their studies under the new university, through the 2030s, the 2040s, the 2050s and the 2060s, and so on, we are creating an educational landscape that will be different from what we have now, and that means there will be a new school of education that will replace the two schools of education at the moment.

Those two schools of education, for example, turn out teachers who have high levels of expertise or understanding or reputation in one area or another. The Adelaide University's focus has been on high schools. The University of South Australia, in many ways, has had a really strong practical application of their approach to learning. The proposition before us will create a new school of education, and we do not know what that is going to look like yet—and that is okay.

I am an optimistic person and, as an opposition, we are supporting the bill. We want this to be a success. It has to be a success for our state. It is going to be too big to fail. But my point is that there is a risk that if the new institution, in their approach to building of the school of education—and the work is starting from the ground up now—get it wrong and their emphasis sways too much to one trend or another fashion, then that will be a disaster. I think they have the people to get it right.

The school of education I choose because it is an easy one to demonstrate the impact of that profession on our state: 70 per cent of the teachers going into our schools every year are going to come out of this institution; that is 700-plus teachers every year. There are about 1,000 teachers who are employed by the Department for Education every year, and another 500 by independent and Catholic schools around South Australia. Potentially hundreds and hundreds and hundreds are going to come out of this new institution.

Are they going to have the world-class skill set? We certainly hope so, and we will do everything we can to support them to make it happen. It is no reflection on the staff who are there, by the way. It is a complicating factor because we are asking two sets of educators, the deans of education in the two different universities, to now work together to create something new. They have been doing things a bit differently from each other up to now, and they are proud of that—and they should be—because they are excellent at what they do.

Creating something new creates questions of culture. The Deputy Premier, in her speech, I noted, and I hope I am accurately reflecting this, said, 'The bill combines the strengths of the University of South Australia and the University of Adelaide.' A new institution does not get created, in terms of its strengths, through a bill. The bill can set out that we want this institution to pursue social outcomes, and we do. We want it to pursue economic outcomes, and we do. Ultimately, culture and policy, funding and circumstances will be also required to work in our favour for the strengths of the University of South Australia and the strengths of the University of Adelaide to both be reflected in the new institution.

I am optimistic, I am hopeful that it will all work out, but confident? No. We have to put in place as many risk mitigation measures as we can along the way. We are supported in that by the strength of leadership of the universities, and I thank and recognise the work that has gone on in the University of Adelaide and the University of South Australia towards developing this proposal. That goes to the members of the council, the senior administration, the vice-chancellors, the chancellors and so many others. I also in that sense think that the work that has been done by those who are sceptical and outright opposed to this proposal has been a hugely important part of this process.

I go back to the government's election commitment to have a commission that would have done that investigative work, when the universities went to the government saying, 'You've got this proposal and we think that actually we would like to merge; would that be satisfactory to the government in terms of seeing its own election commitment fulfilled?' and the government went down that path.

We did not have a commission, but it also meant we did not have that policy framework considered that government departments would usually consider for a new proposal. Within government, it is sort of understood that the simplest way to identify whether the government should do something is to look at whether it was an election policy. The government should implement its election policies. That is its job before everything else.

The minority report that the Hon. Jing Lee and I wrote reflected on this question of whether it was an election commitment. I do not believe that it is an exact reflection of the election commitment; it is certainly cogent to the election commitment. The merger is a potential outcome of the delivery of the election commitment but, having skipped the step of the analysis, we firmly believe that other analysis needed to take its place if there were not to be a commission. Through the joint committee report, it became apparent that no substantial analysis had been undertaken by government other than in certain specific circumstances.

The Department of Treasury did a body of work on what was necessary in order to enable the universities to have confidence in merging, that they were not going to reach their floor of what financial reserves they were comfortable in having, those financial reserves having obviously been diminished through the pandemic. So they required more government investment to keep them afloat during the transition period, which carried significant risks.

The treasury department's focus was very much on that financial question. They talked about effectively negotiating with the universities as to what was necessary. The universities wanted a grant that would have enabled them to proceed without risk. The vice-chancellors were, I thought, pretty eloquent in cutting to the point on this during the evidence they gave. There were questions about the nature of the perpetual funds and the university vice-chancellors said, 'We would be happy to have a grant to replace the need for perpetual funds and then we could create our own perpetual funds.' But the government's approach, which certainly makes things easier for the books in the short to medium term, was to set up funds within Treasury.

We have not complained about this process. Indeed, we have reflected, in the Liberal Party's election commitment that we have already made to establish a research fund for Flinders, that there is a pretty good chance we would use a similar mechanism. We will investigate it further. The capital staying on the government's books does not affect the budget bottom line other than that the earnings from that capital will no longer be in government hands but disbursed to the universities. I think that would be $12 million a year—although the minister might correct me if I am mistaken—but $12 million a year plus and hopefully forever. That investment was worked through with Treasury.

The second department involved was the Department for Industry, Innovation and Science. The higher education unit reports to the Deputy Premier within that department. That department's work was focused on the drafting of the bill, as best I could tell, working with the universities, the leadership of the universities, the Deputy Premier and her office, and possibly the Premier and his office—certainly within government—to identify the nature of the bill. What do we want on it?

There was a public consultation process with the draft bill. There were reflections from the joint committee in relation to the accord, and reviews after the accord. The composition of council was slightly changed. There were some other matters that came up through the public consultation process. The Department for Industry, Innovation and Science in managing that has brought us this bill.

We also asked the Department for Industry, Innovation and Science officers whether any other policy work had been done, for example, on whether this was a good idea, whether it was in the interests of the people of South Australia to proceed with this project. The answer was that effectively that work had been done by the university councils in considering whether or not it was a good idea.

The Deputy Premier and I have spoken about this in the chamber before, but ultimately it is worth restating. The university councils' job is to identify what they perceive is in the best interests of their institutions. The government's job is to identify what is in the best interests of the state and seek to implement it.

That too is the parliament's job. It highlights the importance of the work of having had that joint parliamentary committee. Indeed, I think it goes to why, while we will be supportive of the aspirations and while we will be supportive of trying to unlock the potential that this bill could create—that this new institution could create—we still hold those reservations. At every turn, we urge the government to be mindful of that and to be keeping a close eye on it, to be identifying what supports the universities may need and what obligations might be sought of them to ensure that the opportunities here are realised and not the risks.

One of the other questions in relation to whether it is in the state's best interests is, firstly, the economic question, the social question. The committee identified that they thought on balance it was likely that our interests will be served here. That is based on certain propositions, propositions such as the increase in international students that is potentially able to be realised and the efficiency of having two administrations brought into one, so investments can be made with that in mind. There is a certain efficiency that comes from that that would be ideally applied to increased research.

The example was given during the committee stage that both the universities have spent some $300 million in recent years on new health science type research facilities. If there had been one institution rather than two, it is likely they might have spent $500 million on one extra especially good institution rather than two really good $300 million institutions, and they would have saved $100 million that could have been applied to the work that goes on inside the building. That is not a bad point.

The efficiency argument in terms of this merger is not that they are going to save on ongoing costs from what is there at the moment, because they are seeking to grow the whole scale of the thing, but they are seeking to find efficiencies going forward, such as one enormously monstrously large IT procurement rather than two just monstrously large IT procurements. There may well be a saving there. I suspect it will take a while to realise it, but over the course of decades I am sure we will get there.

The extra funds that will be realised by the efficiency are designed to be invested in research. Indeed, having the scale of the two universities together is designed to accentuate the research opportunities created here. The member for Gibson in her speech talked about the example of cancer biology, where you have two teams of scientists who gave evidence to the committee that they want to work together, that they like to work together. They work together now, but it would be better to have one swipe card rather than two swipe cards, so having the merger will benefit them in doing so.

The benefits there for the state could be significant. It will be supported by the investment of the $200 million perpetual research fund. I might mention it here, it may come up again later, but the perpetual nature of that research fund going to one institution and not the other creates a risk about whether or not staff from Flinders might be attracted to move, which means there would be no net benefit to the state.

In its ideal form, what we will have is maybe potential graduates from the University of Adelaide or the University of South Australia who are doing their work interstate or overseas—they are excellent, the sort of top-quality researchers that we need—being incentivised by this investment to come home to Adelaide, along with other people who are seeking to make Adelaide their home. And why would they not? This is the best place in the world to live. These people are really in demand. They could live anywhere in the world, but the investment from the government is designed to help attract them here. As those top-quality researchers are attracted here and as the University of Adelaide seeks to retain those who it already has—who are performing at that level, partly supported by this new investment from government—then the plan is that the ranking of the university rises.

This is very much a University of Adelaide-focused part of the question, but the University of South Australia, to be clear, is an excellent university. I think it is the best in Australia, and potentially the best in the world, in some of the things it does, but its ranking is lower than Adelaide University's because rankings are mostly based on research intensity and the volume of high-quality research in particular.

The merging of the universities will bring some of the researchers from the University of South Australia who are in a similar category to those of the University of Adelaide. The transition process may see some retire or leave, and there would be a risk there, but ultimately the new money and the new efficiencies that will further unlock new money are supposed to buy in extra researchers who can help lift our ranking from where Adelaide Uni is at the moment—which is on the cusp of the top 100 but probably on a slight downward trajectory.

Under the model of the merger, Adelaide University's ranking in the medium to long term will be able to be secured within the top 100, and if the university is in the top 100 on an ongoing basis then its attractiveness to international students is much enhanced. Adelaide University has, at the moment, about 30 per cent of its students being international students, and they pay a higher annual fee for that privilege than do the 20 per cent, or thereabouts, of the University of South Australia students who are international students. That is a function of rankings.

Regarding the basis for the economic modelling, a large amount of it is predicated on the idea that a merged university would be able to have a proportion of international students that is closer to that of Adelaide University's, because it would be at an attractive-enough ranking point that Adelaide University itself would still be able to deliver teaching of the quality and appeal that the universities want by keeping it under 30 per cent of international students. That extra volume that they could have would be an extra 5,000 to 7,000 students, and those students would effectively be able to be charged the premium prices that Adelaide University is able to charge as a top 100 institution.

There are parts of the world where the ranking of the university from where your degree comes makes an enormous difference to your quality of life. Australia is not really one of those places. In Australia, if the members of this house went to University of Adelaide, University of South Australia, Flinders University, TAFE, institutions interstate or apprenticeships—in South Australia and Australia we are relatively egalitarian in that way. But there are countries in the world where there are cities that you can only really move to if you bring a skill set based on that thing of rankings. That makes it extraordinarily appealing to potential international students to have a top 100 university, as Adelaide has usually been in the past.

So goes the model: extra international students means extra income for Adelaide, and that also can be applied to further research, which is able to help increase and improve our ranking, which is attractive to international students who are able to pay more money to the university, which is then able to apply it into research—and it goes on and on. The University of Adelaide would counsel on that basis, and I certainly can see the economic draw for them in pursuing this approach.

Regarding the University of South Australia, it is clear that the University of South Australia is going into this—not merger but this new institution—as an equal partner. The strengths of the University of South Australia in terms of its reputation as a world-class teaching university, alongside quality research in a smaller number of fields, are able to, in an ideal world, be drawn out. The strong online programs that UniSA has will hopefully not be to the detriment of strong face-to-face delivery of courses as well in the future. The University of South Australia is well-regarded for its online capability, alongside graduate satisfaction, employer satisfaction with the graduates of the University of South Australia, and its success in reaching students from backgrounds that have not been university educated in the past.

Flinders University is good at all of these things too, by the way, but we will come to Flinders a bit later. With the University of South Australia coming into it as an equal partner, its graduates will get a Group of Eight certificate on their parchment whereas previously they did not. That is something that is a nice to have; it is not necessarily a must have. I suspect for many of their graduates they will not really mind either way, but it is certainly a nice to have. People can point to their CV and say, 'I came from one of the top eight institutions in Australia.' We hope that as Flinders gets closer to the top 10, all of our graduates will have that opportunity.

I guess for the University of South Australia, the bigger thing that would probably be attractive to council members is they have significant plans to continue expanding what they do and continue improving the work that they do, and the funding potentially realised by this merger may enable them to speed up those plans. That goes towards the opportunity and why the councils of the universities consider it in their economic benefit to do it and, from the state's point of view, both research and international students are important for our economy and for social benefit too.

International students do not just spend money at the university through their course fees. They live here. They pay rent. They pay for food. They do part-time work in many, many cases helping provide workforce in an economy that needs a workforce boost like no tomorrow. International students work inside our communities. They volunteer inside our communities. During the bushfires in the 2019-20 summer, there were international students in amongst the community groups that provided support to families who had lost their homes. The benefit of having international students in your community is broad.

They also spent money at our tourist destinations. Their families come and visit them; particularly from some markets, their families come and live with them on occasions and spend money in our economy. There was once, I guess, a question mark that some people in the community had over whether housing and potential jobs, potential university spaces, were taken up by international students that would otherwise be going to domestic students. I think that that has mostly been put to bed over the years. I think broadly everyone's understanding is more sophisticated than it might once have been.

International students are an unambiguous good for South Australia and we like having them here. I would like to see more of them able to successfully pursue migration outcomes. I do not think we should be ashamed to tell the federal government that that is an important part of what we are seeking to achieve in South Australia, because the challenges for our workforce needs are different from those in Melbourne and Sydney, and Brisbane perhaps, where there might be more strain put on communities. International students also tend to have different accommodation preferences from people who have grown up in Australia. Those accommodation preferences are not necessarily, or not even usually, competing in the same space.

Let's assume that these extra international students are an unambiguous social and economic good for the state as well as for the institutions. Then turn our minds to research. This is one where there is as much risk as any factor in the merger, because you will recall me saying that the benefits for research were largely in terms of new investments that can be made and those new investments can be made through extra profits for the universities from international students being able to be applied into areas of intensive research.

It can be applied through the savings and efficiencies made through having one institution rather than two, not having the double bureaucracies within the institution—although I do not know too many experiences where combining two institutions' bureaucracies has ended up having a smaller bureaucracy than the two combined, but let's assume that examples such as the saving of the money in the health science building could be applied in perpetuity. There would be some money saved there and then there is the perpetual fund from the government. So there is extra money for research. But it does not follow without risk that that will necessarily mean that the research effort will improve.

There are certainly the building blocks and the foundations that in an ideal world it will, but there are risks here too, because here's the thing: Adelaide University's ranking has been put to the committee on a number of occasions. It is based on the output of those top 200 researchers. Questions have been asked about how you apply extra funding. You can fund teams, you can fund work; really, the most significant area where you would often be putting in extra money is human capital—the extraordinarily unique individuals who discovered the vaccines, who discovered how to do X-rays in a new and exciting way, who discovered the over the horizon radar that protects our country. Those unique individuals are at another level and it is a cost to attract them to our city and our state.

These are people who could work at any university in the world if they wanted to live in a certain city. Attracting them is a special proposition, and some of them—a good number of them—are here now, and not every single one of them is a massive fan of this process so there is a risk about losing some of the people we have.

The committee report goes into the risk, and particularly in the minority report the Hon. Jing Lee and I talk about this risk, and a number of witnesses put in evidence about this. I said earlier in my speech that my gratitude to the people who had put work into the committee was significant because it is only by addressing concerns, including by the sceptics, that we were able to maximise our chance of this institution's success.

The risk of them leaving because they are not happy and they can get jobs elsewhere needs to be a factor in the minds of the vice-chancellors, the university councils and the government as we proceed, because if a group of them leave—if a large group of them leave—then that has a bigger short-to-medium term impact on the university's ranking.

You will recall, sir, the whole proposition of the virtuous circle of the funding, the research, the rankings and the international students going round and round. If that breaks, if you do not get the ranking improvement because the transition cost has been too much, if you do not have the funding that will come from the international students who will be attracted by that ranking, then you do not have that funding to invest in the research, then you do not get the benefits. You have to be mindful of that.

The vice-chancellors of the University of Adelaide and the University of South Australia, Professor Peter Høj and Professor David Lloyd, were really good to engage with the opposition after the minority report. They highlighted some of the recruitments they have been able to undertake in recent times, including in this year, and highlighting that, at the same time as there may or may not be numbers of people planning on leaving, they are still continuing to recruit.

They have been recruiting from top-level universities. We have a head of the Department for Education, for example, who has come to us from Oxford University, who is outstanding, and there are a number of others. This, as a focus for them, is clear. It must be a focus for them, and I appreciate their energies in reaching out to the opposition and providing us with further evidence of extra work they are putting in to mitigate this risk.

A range of other suggestions were put forward through the Joint Committee on the Establishment of Adelaide University, and we will certainly be urging the government to invest in those.

So much for research. The benefits of the research, if this goes well, are significant because it is not just about the rankings. The rankings are infuriating in some ways because the rankings do not define what a university is good at, other than in limited categories the rankings agencies are interested in, but they are so important to the international students that they cannot be denied. But research taking place at a high-quality level is important in our state. The commercialisation of research, the connection between businesses and startups, and major primes, and work going on in our universities cannot be understated.

Less than a kilometre from here—or maybe it is a kilometre from here—at Lot Fourteen you have world-leading aeronautical, defence, cyber and space companies that are attracted to work in Lot Fourteen not just because of their proximity to the Cyber Collaboration Centre brought to South Australia by the Marshall Liberal government, by the Australian Space Agency brought to South Australia by the Marshall Liberal government and the Australian Institute for Machine Learning brought to South Australia by the University of Adelaide, and so many other wonderful opportunities at Lot Fourteen all next to each other. But they are keen to work in collaboration with our universities, and indeed Flinders and Adelaide and UniSA all have their own programs working with these major defence companies and others.

That collaboration is really important. It is also important to facilitate the commercialisation from within, whether it is in areas critical to South Australia's economy like agricultural technology and food production, our defence needs and the AUKUS opportunities that we have as a state, and shipbuilding, missiles and radar and other warfare capabilities, and health sciences which is a major focus for all three of our universities when it comes to research.

By seeking to solve issues and create opportunities through research, which is relevant in the South Australian context, we also maximise the opportunities for businesses in those areas to thrive here in South Australia and we maximise the opportunities for our undergraduate students to work with those businesses in those areas here in South Australia.

The work that our universities do is more than just teaching and it is more than just research, but there is also a particular collaboration between teaching and research that—it has been put to me by a couple of people—is also part of the exciting thing about this merger. Because as the merger seeks to have a new institution that is building its curriculum, the way in which it might be able to integrate exposure to some of those special research fields in the delivery of undergraduate courses, not just postgraduate courses, is potentially quite exciting and could really lift what is on offer for our students. It has an impact on the social and economic fortunes for this state.

Coming back to the joint committee's report, the joint committee identified, as it put:

On the balance of evidence received, the Committee considers that the economic and social interests of the State of South Australia would likely be advanced by the amalgamation of The University of Adelaide and the University of South Australia…

They said 'would likely be'. It is a judgement call, it is a subjective call. I think they certainly could be, and if the opportunities that I have described are realised, then it will, but they are not the only things that need to be considered.

The university councils will have given considerations to some of those broader educational questions. I talked about the school of education before. There are two law schools at the two universities, there are humanities crossovers between the two courses, there are multiple areas of duplication. We have been told that everyone is going to be continuing on and working together, certainly through to 2027. As they are building these courses together, there is a range of areas that are going to be really interesting.

For those in our community who have been to university, the question of what should their university be doing, what should they be focusing on, is always going to be significantly influenced by what they studied and what their experiences were. If somebody learnt to be an accountant at University of Adelaide or University of South Australia, probably that is going to have a very strong perspective on what they think an accounting school should look like.

What if you were to tell them that actually the other university focuses almost entirely on different course material to what their university did, that the other university does not really value the things that they felt to be important in their career as an accountant or a business manager or a local government official or a politician, that the things they found useful the other university does differently—then those guys are all going to have to come together and build a course. That is a complexity.

I think about the ways in which schools and disciplines within the university come together as a risk point, potentially an opportunity point. Maybe these brilliant minds as they are, working together, will come up with something better than the sum of their parts, and I hope that that is the case. There is a lot of investment going into this, but the idea that we are going forward here without risk is something that not a lot of public policy work has gone into in the course of this debate, and I think that that is a shame.

But we put now as a parliament our trust in the leadership of the universities to get it right. They are brilliant people, and they will apply themselves to this diligently and expertly, but it behoves the government to keep an eye on how it is going so that we can, at each turn, identify where there are specific areas of risk that attention needs to be paid to.

One of those areas of risk comes then in the form of the funding arrangements. The joint committee heard evidence early on from Professor Bebbington, former vice-chancellor of the University of Adelaide, and others in relation to the reforms that the federal government currently has underway into the accord process. This was an important consideration. It was put to the vice-chancellors whether this was a concern and it was not for them, and it was not necessarily a concern for Professor Mary O'Kane either, who was the chair of that accord process, who also presented to the committee; and she is a former vice-chancellor of the University of Adelaide.

That does not mean that all of the concern around this has necessarily been assuaged. It has to be noted that we are talking about a process of federal funding that is one of the most significant potential impacts on the future of this university as well. The impacts of the accord, to put it into context, the impacts of funding changes that might exist on the accord could be substantially more dramatic than the impacts of funding coming from the state government's investment in the $320 million perpetual funds.

When the federal government changes university funding structures at any point that has a big impact on the business of universities. That accord process, and the timing of it, is really critical. I foreshadow to the minister that we will be spending a little bit of time when we get into committee on looking at what is expected of the review process that will be coming after the accord is finished, because the timing is awkward here, to say the least.

When the government signed heads of agreement with the Adelaide Uni and UniSA vice-chancellors or chancellors in early July, and the Greens and Frank Pangallo and the Liberal Party advocated for a review of this whole matter in the parliament because the policy work had not be done, we advocated for a longer process. The government said, 'No, three months,' and they were supported by One Nation and Connie Bonaros in the Legislative Council in their arrangements to have an abbreviated committee that lasted for three months. The government have always said—and have been consistent in this—that they want to do it this year.

The most compelling evidence as to why this needed to be finished this year, to my mind, comes from two sources, one being TEQSA. TEQSA said that they would work towards getting accreditation for 1 July next year if the legal process was finished early next year, but it would be harder to guarantee than if it was this year. The second source is the vice-chancellors. They made the point that senior staff in the University of Adelaide and University of South Australia have been working on the merger now for a while—over a year—and that has prevented them from working on other core business, because there are only so many hours in the day. That other core business is stuff that people at Flinders University and their competitors interstate continue to work on while senior staff and heads of discipline at Adelaide Uni and UniSA are working on transition planning.

For all those reasons, the earlier they can get an answer the better. The vice-chancellors said they needed an answer in the first quarter of next year, but earlier would be preferable. So we are working to this time line, and I expect this bill will be completed this week. This speech will be finished today. However, the consequence of rushing must be taken into consideration too. If someone says, 'Are we really rushing it? It has taken a year and a half,' you have to take into account the whole federal funding matrix for universities is probably going to change next year, and we will have a much better idea what that is going to look like in a couple of months hence than we do now, to the point where there is going to be a review of the legislation after the federal accord process has been finished because it has been identified as an issue.

It is an issue that has been dismissed by some. It is an issue that has been said is the be-all and end-all by others. The truth may be somewhere in the middle or it may not, but it behoves this parliament to seriously take into consideration what the consequence of the new federal funding model that was to be put in place after the accord process would be if it provided benefits to smaller institutions for having a smaller specialisation. What would be the consequence if there were new regulations that impacted on how funding from international students was able to be used to cross-subsidise research or other aspects of a university's existence?

Those are serious matters that have been raised through the accord process, and highlighted to the committee, and I think the basis on which they have been dismissed has been that the chair of the accord process, Mary O'Kane, and the federal Minister for Education, Jason Clare, have given the state government sufficient comfort for the state government's needs that they think that a new merged university will be okay in a post-accord transition. There is no detail on how it will be okay because there is no detail on what reforms the accord will put in place.

Nevertheless, I am persuaded that the decision should be reached on this merger one way or the other sooner rather than later, because otherwise the risk to Adelaide Uni and UniSA is that their senior leadership are distracted from their jobs for an ongoing period of time. The significant number of hours every single week that these academics and professional staff at the universities—and academics who are working as professional staff at the universities now—have been putting into this process is dramatic. They cannot do that for the next 18 months and expect to see no impact on the ongoing work at their universities.

I absolutely accept that, but—but—we will need to spend some time considering how the accord process may have an impact and what reassurances the state government may have had from the federal government other than those that are in the public arena about what the nature of the accord outcomes are going to look like.

I cannot help but look at the experience of a brilliant man—and I use the word brilliant in terms of a clear intellectual powerhouse—like Glyn Davis and his work at Melbourne University, which has been highlighted as a large, successful thriving university. You know what? Glyn Davis has said some things on the record about the benefits of smaller institutions too. He is going to have a pretty profound impact on what the federal government does given his role within the federal government, I would have thought, so it will be really a key question for the state government to focus on.

It is a risk that the state government as they talk to their federal Labor colleagues are in a position to mitigate in a way the universities are not, necessarily, because it will be a political question for the federal parliament what reforms they end up putting in place and the impact that will have, potentially, on our institution here in South Australia. That is an area of risk that needs to be understood and considered as we do this.

There is a risk in the status quo that I suspect is not as well understood as might be the case. And why would it be, because we do not want to highlight how our vulnerabilities to competitor institutions interstate or, indeed, interstate governments. The University of Adelaide has held the top 100 status for long periods of time and is in and out of it at the moment; the question mark is whether, without a merger, it is capable of staying there.

There is certainly different evidence put forward on that, but what we do know is that internationally other universities are increasingly investing in their own institutions, and that is reducing the proportion of undergraduate students who are seeking to go overseas, as they have more and more institutions themselves ascending the ranking tables. The volume of people around the world who are undertaking university studies is increasing, the volume of places within universities is increasing, the volume of people who can read and the volume of people who are educated, full stop, around the world is increasing dramatically.

Within that context, it is harder and harder to be competitive for an institution such as the University of Adelaide or, indeed, any of our others. I note that Flinders University is doing really well. Flinders University is ascending the rankings despite those challenges, and over the last few years its performance in attracting research grants has also increased. I think if some of those achievements Flinders University has been able to do over the last five years were reflected broadly, we would all be very proud. The point I am getting to there is that we hope Flinders University will be in the national top 10 within a few years.

That impact on Flinders is something that I think the government has failed to consider satisfactorily through the course of this debate. There is that risk to the status quo in not being merged into Adelaide University that has been highlighted as a reason to support the merger, and you cannot think of the outcomes for the tertiary sector in South Australia on that basis and not also consider the outcomes for the tertiary sector in South Australia that affect Flinders as a result of the merger. We want Flinders to achieve that potential. We must see Flinders achieve that potential, just as we must see the merged university succeed as it goes ahead.

For that to happen, I urge the government over the next two years during this term of government to institute a research fund for Flinders University in the same way this bill proposes to do for Adelaide University. We have said that the Liberal Party in government will do it. The timing is fine here because the urgency of the research fund is to support Adelaide University in the merger through its transition risks, and Flinders does not carry that risk, but the perpetual nature of the fund requires parity, otherwise in 50 to 100 years we will have seen $2 billion to $3 billion invested from this fund in one university and nothing in the other one.

How can they possibly over that period of time be at the same level? That is setting up a long-term recipe for failure or at least a recipe for diminishment of one of our institutions at the expense of the other. It can easily be fixed by signalling now, or signalling with the election of a Liberal government in two years, that Flinders will also receive a comparable investment from the state government to set it up for success so that its research opportunities can also see it continue to rise, as we hope the new institution will rise on the same basis.

The teaching of the students, effectively the student experience, is really the important thing to consider. I will talk about students and undergraduates. There is a bit of a furphy that is broadly accepted and understood in society, but is probably inaccurate, about the nature of these two institutions. Adelaide University was always seen as the sandstone institution, the prestigious institution. The expectation is that kids with higher ATARs go to Adelaide University; kids with lower ATARs go to the University of South Australia. The thing is that is not entirely accurate.

I said before that a Group of Eight badge on their parchment would be appealing or attractive to many students from the University of South Australia, but it actually does not drive many of their decisions. The decisions that drive domestic students, as opposed to international students, are far broader than the ranking of their university. The ATARs that the universities expect of their students are not so different as you would imagine.

The report from the joint committee highlights five popular degree courses, and the comparison of minimum ATARs is worth looking at. The minimum ATAR required for a Bachelor of Marketing by the University of Adelaide is, I think for last year, 68.5; the minimum ATAR for the University of South Australia is 65.45—a difference of three. I can tell you from my own experience that a difference of three in a year 12 exam context tells you absolutely nothing about a student's opportunities to succeed in their degree and in life. It tells you as much about how much sleep they were getting during their year 12 exam period as anything else.

I will tell you more than that: if a student is not getting sleep in their year 12 exam period, or if they get sick in that period, the difference in their ATAR will be a hell of a lot more than three from what their potential is. They are basically equivalent. A Bachelor of Accounting: the ATAR for the University of Adelaide is 61.5 and for the University of South Australia is 60.4. A Bachelor of Science is 61.3 and 56.45. For the Bachelor of Engineering (Honours) (Mechanical), a very esteemed course, at the University of Adelaide you need 68.65 and at the University of South Australia you need 68.3—a full 0.35 points less.

This is not a sign we have a system where all the top students are going to one institution and the students who could not quite get into that, between the band of 68.3 and 68.65, that band of 0.35, are going to the University of South Australia—no. What is happening is that students are making choices about which model of education appeals more to them, which campus is closer to home, which university was more appealing to them when they engaged through their student expo days and what the timetabling is like. Goodness me, there are so many different factors that will go into a student's choice if they are a local student in what university they pursue.

I was really interested to see the minimum ATAR to get into a Bachelor of International Business at the University of Adelaide is 62.2. The minimum at UniSA is 65.75, 3½ higher at the University of South Australia than it is at the University of Adelaide. There are courses that are offered at the University of Adelaide that are not offered at UniSA and vice versa, and there are some courses that have a broader gap in ATAR. But here is another point: half of the students going to these institutions do not get in on their ATAR at all. There are a range of different methodologies by which students arrive at university now, and the fact is that there is probably a bigger disparity in terms of the preparedness of students for university study amongst our international students than there is amongst our local domestic students here in South Australia.

I do not accept that there is a gulf between the University of Adelaide and the University of South Australia in terms of the quality and preparedness of the students. Given that many of those students are currently choosing Adelaide Uni or UniSA for what they perceive the student experience to be at the moment, and we are replacing that choice with having just one university, that student experience will be really important.

I spoke to a number of students. We spoke to the presidents of the Liberal Clubs and the presidents of the student associations in the committee. I have spoken to a range of students who reached out, and there were a number who we reached out to. The things that they were interested in were not always what you might expect. One student talked to me about how excited they were about the powerhouse sporting teams that they felt would be able to achieve great things at the university games with the influx of extra students from which to draw their teams. They highlighted that the big universities do better because there are more potential sporting people.

That is not in itself a reason to support the bill or oppose it. It is just highlighting that not everything that is driving people's motivations and thinking about whether this is a good or bad thing is going to be homogenous. One student highlighted that they did not really like one of their lecturers. They had heard that the lecturer at the other university in that course was better, and they were sorry that they were not going to have the opportunity to work with them because the merger was still three years away.

We had feedback from some students that they thought that the new university would be able to get rid of some of the old assumptions about what university education is. There is a level of risk in that, too. One of the challenges, getting back to my point about the risks of the status quo, is that some of those university courses that are really valuable are not seen as important by a number of students and are not getting as many students studying them. This could be talking about languages, different parts of performing arts, or classics.

I will just highlight an example of why these things are important to teach. The Deputy Premier was Minister for Education for three years and shadow minister for a number of years. She would have had many opportunities to talk to school students from around South Australia. I had such an opportunity a few weeks ago. I was asked about the UN Security Council dealing with the situation in Israel and Palestine. I do not want to get into that issue on this point, other than to say that one of the students asked me a question in a senior secondary course on politics, suggesting that there was no historical connection prior to 1947 between the Israeli people and the land on which the country of Israel now exists.

It was an illumination for them to discover that actually there is a historical connection going back thousands and thousands of years. It was in fact an occupying force in the Roman Empire and the decisions taken after an uprising in Judea that led to the diaspora of the Jewish people around Europe, Africa and Asia and, indeed, the connection that many of them had.

Some of that would have been considered at one point to be essential foundational parts of any liberal arts degree in a university—an understanding of history and classics. In the modern world, we do not expect students who are focused on one area towards a particular profession, almost seen as a vocational calling, towards medicine, engineering, accounting or anything else, to also pick up a classics or history elective.

But, in my view, it is important within an institution that those disciplines continue to be supported, so that the research in those areas, the publishing in those areas and the teaching of our students who choose to become, for example, our history teachers or our politics teachers gives them the option of engaging with the past as well, and some of those key areas. Languages is one that is particularly challenging because for all of the energy that we put into our school students to encourage them to study languages, if they do not see a pathway at university for the further study of those languages to a level of expertise, then it is really hard to convince a year 12 student to complete that language through to the end of their SACE.

All of these subjects with lower numbers of student enrolment are at risk unless the university leadership subsidises them or supports them in an ongoing fashion. The university leaderships generally do as best they can, as far as I can tell, but the risk in these courses and these disciplines is much greater than those in which there are always going to be ongoing numbers of students seeking professional qualifications that they need to do the jobs or careers that they want to do afterwards.

I was comforted not just through the responses of the vice-chancellors in the university joint committee but also in the responses that the vice-chancellors gave to the Liberal Party in response to our minority report, by their confidence that these less popular—at this passing time—courses would be better supported, and would be less at risk, in the context of a broader merged university with greater resources.

The other area that can potentially benefit substantially from a merger that would otherwise be at risk, especially in the case of another pandemic or a significant event—the term 'black swan event' was regularly used during the committee. I am not sure if that was a new term used by the universities, or if I am betraying my ignorance of something that everyone has been using for years but, at any rate, I encourage the Deputy Premier in her second reading response to elucidate for me whether she had heard of the term before.

In relation to this idea of another black swan event—let's just say something bad happens—whether or not there is a risk to courses with lower enrolments, or whether there is a risk to the investments that do not make money in other areas, a particular one is regional South Australia. Our regions in South Australia are so critically fundamental to who we are as a state and what we produce, but people living in regional South Australia face different challenges and different natures of challenges from people living in regions in other states.

South Australia is the jurisdiction in the world with the largest disparity between the population centre of its major city and its second city: 1.7-odd million people in Adelaide and 25,000 or so in Mount Gambier is quite a difference, and we are a large state. The risks and challenges facing students growing up in regional towns and the opportunities that they will have—what their parents or their schools must go through and invest in order to get them into the city to see different pathways, or to get people from the city to come to them and see what pathways might be out there—are entirely different from a student growing up in Ballarat or Bendigo or Mildura or Geelong.

Regional Victoria or regional Queensland, where a significant proportion of the state's population does not live in its large capital city—even in Western Australia, the enormous scale and space of Western Australia, the regional centres are much, much larger than ours, and so getting a critical mass of students in a regional centre in South Australia, such as would make a university campus viable in and of itself, is a challenge. This is an area where we hope the accord process will help, in terms of redirecting some of the federal government's energy. We hope that it will help serve us in a South Australian context.

With the decision to merge two of our state's three universities, the existing effort made by those universities is a critical question to contemplate whether there will be a net benefit, a net loss or more of the same in the event of this merger. The Flinders University effort in the regions is significant. Flinders University has made the point that with a portion of the scholarship fund for the new Adelaide institution going towards the regions, they think that they should have a cut of that too. I put that proposition to the Deputy Premier and invite her comment in her response.

But the broader question is: what effort is this new institution going to make in the regions and how can we ensure that it will not just not dip but, indeed, grow? We want to see Roseworthy continue and thrive. We want to see Mount Gambier and Whyalla continue and thrive. Waite is not a regional campus, but I tell you what: if the work done at the Waite Institute is not important for regional South Australia then, as Patrick Conlon once said in this chamber, 'I will go he for chasey.' The investments are broader than that—investments on Eyre Peninsula and the APY lands, even, on a more modest scale.

The university hub proposition is one that is really important. Take, for example, Port Pirie, which is the uni hub that serves the member for Frome's electorate to a certain extent. That uni hub's fundamental tenant is not a South Australian university. Students from South Australian universities are able to access it and use its facilities and contribute to the small campus environment that they have there, and some student coursework is delivered there. But we would like to see a lot more and a lot more engagement, particularly from our state institutions.

The Speirs Liberal government, if elected next election, will work with the universities. We are completely eager to work with Flinders, and hopefully there will be federal funding as well to support us. We will invest state money in not just ensuring that our existing offerings are able to be maintained on a net basis but that there will be new offerings and service in new regions—that could be Clare and the Clare Valley, for example. It could be the South-East; it could be new or extended services in the Riverland. There is a range of different population centres where I think that there is definitely an opportunity for our regions to be better served.

It will be interesting to see where the government's work with the new institution goes on the $20 million fund that they have identified to be added to the equity fund specifically to support regional South Australians. It could be that that goes to support scholarships. Of course, the original equity fund would also potentially support scholarships, including a significant number from regional South Australians, who I would have thought would have been eligible. It could be that the government will work with the universities to invest in assistance programs for students who have to move to Adelaide. I hope that a portion of it will go on the sort of basis that I am talking about here: programs that will assist students from regional South Australia to do a portion of their work in the regions.

There are a couple of reasons why this can work really well and will only be accentuated by the further investment that the Speirs Liberal government will put in from 2026. But I just want to highlight the challenge first, and then the opportunity is there for the Deputy Premier to hopefully take up in the next period of time.

When I was education minister we put a lot of work into our country education strategy. One of the key issues we were seeking to resolve was: how do we attract people to not just take a job in the country so that they can get permanency with the department and then a right of return to the city, but how do we encourage them to engage in that community, succeed in that community, love that community? How do we encourage people who might have the aptitudes and the dispositions to work, and love working, in the country to stay there?

A lot of it is to do with the experience people have when they first arrive. That experience really needs to happen at university to an extent, as well: helping people acclimatise in a town, make friends, get accustomed to the ways of the local area, get accustomed to the fact that the parents of the kids they are teaching are also the ones they are going to see in the local pub or the local restaurant on any given day.

One of the ways that you can see a higher level of success for a teacher—or a nurse or doctor or any other number of professions that we need in the country—to want to work in the country, or to succeed when they get there, is if it is a country person to start with. When you have the experience that you are growing up in a town or a regional community and you know you need to leave that region in order to fulfil your educational opportunities, then one of the risks is you do that at the age of, say, 18—finish school, move to town, stay at St Mark's, go to uni, make your friends, build your life in town.

If there is an opportunity to do a portion of that study, especially the first year or two of a degree, in your region somewhere in the country then that encourages people to think about their region as being the destination for their education and town as just being somewhere that helps facilitate its completion. We would like to see more kids—not that everyone wants to do that as some of these kids are loving coming into town and are very excited about it—able to access their educational opportunities while still living in their regions if that is what they want to do.

The way in which the new university seeks to build its courses in a modular way should actually make this easier, including the model where you have a uni hub and a regional centre where a student can access significant portions of the course, or indeed they could do it from home or work, because one of the things we want to do is encourage more people in work to have the opportunity to pick up further skills, qualifications or degrees. They can do that while living in their community and while still contributing to their community. We do not have this dearth of people as they go off into town to study.

A student who is still living in their home town and is able to access education, either partly or wholly, through a uni hub is able to continue their contribution to the local sporting team, their local volunteering and their local part-time work and, indeed, they do not need the same level of financial support in order to take up a place in a share flat or university accommodation or otherwise accommodation in the city. There are many benefits to providing more opportunities for students to study while still in a region, but it will require some state investment because it is clear that, without the state government having previously taken a leading role in engaging with our South Australian institutions, it has not happened to the extent that we would like it to.

I have great optimism that the campus at Mount Gambier will increase and flourish in the years ahead. I was challenged a couple of years ago when Whyalla students who wanted to study education had courses withdrawn. The Deputy Premier might have even been the education minister at the time, and I recall her and I—I think it was her—both writing to the vice-chancellor of the University of South Australia and getting these answers about the number of students not being there to support that education course.

At any rate, there are challenges to regional delivery, but we certainly want to do what we can to overcome those challenges and see the net offering increase and not just stay the same because at the moment, frankly, it is not enough and at the moment, when it comes to uni hubs, I would love to see an anchor tenant be one of those South Australian universities.

Two weeks ago, when I made the commitment for the opposition to deliver on this uni hub if we form government, I was also very much encouraged and appreciative of the vice-chancellors of UniSA and the University of Adelaide putting in writing that they too would be eager to work with any government that wants to invest in that and they are absolutely open to being an anchor tenant. I am certain that, with the right level of support, subject to student interest and everything else that needs to be worked through, Flinders would as well because their commitment to the regions is also really strong.

So, on balance, this merger proposal does present some opportunities for regional South Australia and that informs our thinking in supporting the bill as well. It is not to be assumed that it will have benefit. The Deputy Premier may point to the objects or the functions, where it talks about the importance of this university serving the whole state, but ultimately in its delivery it requires resourcing, culture and intentionality of the leadership of the university. Having that has been good and certainly on our side of the chamber we would be eager to work with all our institutions if we are in government to ensure that is an opportunity that is delivered.

I have spoken at some length in relation to Flinders University as I have been going, so I will not spend an enormous time. Certainly, after lunch I do not expect to be going back to it. The two perpetual funds that this bill creates, the equity fund and the research fund, are of course funds that will support the university in doing things that the university is already doing or should be doing.

The point has been made and accepted by the government that Flinders University offers courses that the merged university will not. It would be to the detriment of a student who wanted to be a paramedic, for example, if a scholarship was available at Adelaide University, funded by the state, to do something else that then dissuaded them from doing that calling. That would be a detriment to the state.

The government has got on board and has committed I think it was $40 million towards an equivalent equity fund for Flinders University. That money will not go to benefit the university necessarily, as the money, I assume, at Adelaide University will not go to benefit the university. It will go to those students who might be first in family, who might be from disadvantaged or vulnerable backgrounds, who might be in the circumstance where, without a scholarship, the level of work that they would need to do to support themselves through university would potentially reduce their risk of succeeding at university and therefore thriving and achieving the contribution that we want them to make to our state.

The equity funds, make no bones about it, are going to be a benefit to students and to our state. The funding does not go directly to the universities, but the universities probably would be seeking to create them and they do make commitments like this out of their own resources, but having the perpetual fund reduces the risk that they might be denuded in the years ahead. It is good that an equity fund is being set up for Flinders as well. I would be interested in the minister's second reading responses to the mechanism that is being proposed to create that for Flinders.

But research going to one institution and not the other is where we come back to. I accept at their word—the vice-chancellors of the University of South Australia and the University of Adelaide—when they say that they are not looking to poach from Flinders' top-level researchers. If we are looking at the six areas of special focus the university is taking for high levels of research—and these will be in areas from defence to the arts, even, and all of those areas—there are people at Flinders who do those areas as well.

Whether it is the top-flight researchers who might seek to be part of the new institution because they are offering more money, or if it is even a lower level researcher or a recent graduate from Flinders who wants to join the team at the new university, because again there is all this state government investment that is going in to support these new research areas, then if that graduate or if that researcher or if that top-flight researcher alike, if any of them are coming from Flinders then that is not bringing a net benefit to the state with state government money; that is state government money supporting one institution over the other. It does not require the merged institution to be seeking to poach for that to happen as an unintended consequence.

It would only be reasonable, therefore, for Flinders University to have access to the same level of support, but not necessarily the same dollar amount in terms of the capital for the fund. Flinders University will probably be about 30 to 35 per cent of the size of the new institution. In terms of its research funding and support, it will probably be in the order of 40 per cent—you can pick a figure; the Flinders University certainly has.

With the choices that you make there, the key thing is whether or not you have a fund that will enable state government support to ensure that all of our university sector flourishes through both of our universities benefitting from this state investment. Over the course of the next 10 years, this investment for Adelaide University will be well over $100 million, potentially over $200 million, depending on how the fund performs.

Over the course of 20-30 years, you are starting to talk about some money that will be transformational. Over a couple of generations, we are talking about enormous amounts of money. For that to go to one and not the other is a risk to our sector, through Flinders missing out, that I do not think is in the interests of the people of South Australia. The Speirs Liberal government will therefore invest in Flinders University. I encourage the government to rethink this over the course of the next period and do this work now because it will only be to their credit if they do and we will welcome it if they do. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 14:00.